age of sources literature review

•   [email protected]
• Shapiro Library
• SNHU Library Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ: How old should or can a source be for my research?

• 7 Academic Integrity & Plagiarism
• 63 Academic Support, Writing Help, & Presentation Help
• 28 Access/Remote Access
• 7 Accessibility
• 9 Building/Facilities
• 6 Career/Job Information
• 25 Catalog/Print Books
• 25 Circulation
• 142 Citing Sources
• 14 Copyright
• 307 Databases
• 23 Directions/Location
• 19 Faculty Resources/Needs
• 7 Hours/Contacts
• 2 Innovation Lab & Makerspace/3D Printing
• 25 Interlibrary Loan
• 42 IT/Computer/Printing Support
• 3 Library Instruction
• 37 Library Technology Help
• 6 Multimedia
• 16 Online Programs
• 20 Periodicals
• 24 Policies
• 8 RefWorks/Citation Managers
• 4 Research Guides (LibGuides)
• 214 Research Help
• 22 University Services

Last Updated: Jul 18, 2024 Views: 134573

How old your research sources can be, using the publication date or date of creation as the defining criteria, is either stated in your assignment rubric or depends on your field of study or academic discipline.  If it’s a requirement for your assignment, look for words like “sources must be published in the last 10 years” or words to that effect that specify the publication date or range required.  If the currency of sources is not a requirement of your assignment, think about the course involved and what an appropriate age might be.

How fast-changing is the field of study?

Sources for a history paper might, by their very nature, be older if they are diaries, personal letters, or other documents created long ago and used as primary sources.  Sources used for research in the sciences (health care, nursing, engineering), business and finance, and education and other social science fields require more “cutting edge” research, as these fields change quickly with the acquisition of new knowledge and the need to share it rapidly with practitioners in those fields.

A good rule of thumb is to use sources published in the past 10 years for research in the arts, humanities, literature, history, etc.

For faster-paced fields, sources published in the past 2-3 years is a good benchmark since these sources are more current and reflect the newest discoveries, theories, processes, or best practices.

Use the library’s Multi-Search search results page to limit your sources to those published within a date range you specify.  Use the Publication Date custom setting seen on the left side of the search results page:

For further assistance with this or other search techniques, contact the Shapiro Library email at [email protected]  or use our 24/7 chat service.

• Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 179 No 48

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) are a self-serve option for users to search and find answers to their questions. 

Use the search box above to type your question to search for an answer or browse existing FAQs by group, topic, etc.

Tell Me More

Link to Question Form

More assistance.

Submit a Question

Related FAQs

• my research
• contributions and comments

the literature review – how old are the sources?

I recently had an email from a colleague asking me what I would do if I was examining a thesis and the vast majority of the literatures were over ten years old. Would this be a problem? What would I say?

Well I agreed that this was nearly always a problem in science, where knowledge-building is usually taken to be iterative – researchers build on what has gone before. But using dated literatures was also likely to be a problem in the social sciences, arts and humanities. However, I said, I often saw another problem in these disciplines – theses which had the exact opposite difficulty – there was nothing in the literatures that was presented that was over ten years old. It was all ‘new’. This could be equally worrying, I suggested.

Age-related literature problems arise for examiners because having either too much ‘vintage’ OR too much ‘just off the press’ means that the writer is not achieving what literatures work is intended to do – namely :

(1) the thesis writer must locate their work in the field

With a tiny handful of exceptions, most fields of study are more than ten years old. And even if they have just been invented, they usually draw on other fields which are well established. Examiners expect doctoral researchers to show that they understand something of the development of their field, and that they understand why it is the way that it is. In other words, the researcher must show how the field they are in, as well as the problem that they are researching, are historically situated. They must indicate what seminal texts and writers are relevant. They must also indicate ongoing debates in the field.

An examiner may well conclude that a researcher who works with literatures that are all very recent is someone who has, either knowingly or not, adopted a kind of amnesiac stance to what they are doing.

(2) the thesis writer must situate the contribution that they are going to make

There are very few fields in which there has been no scholarly activity for a long time. Scholars generally live in crowded territories where someone is always writing something that is relevant to at least part of their endeavour. So reviewing the literatures doesn’t just mean coming to terms with history. It means getting to grips with the present. In order to specify the contribution to be made, the researcher must survey the field and its trends – and this means right up to the moment. Presenting a set of texts that are over ten years old will appear to examiners as an ossified view, stuck in a particular period.

Of course with a thesis, as with a book or an article, there does come a point when the researcher just has to stop reading and finish the piece off. There’s no doubt that it is absolutely infuriating for journal article writers to send something off for review and have it wait for months to be looked at and then be told by a referee that they haven’t referred to something that came out in the last two weeks. But this doesn’t matter so much with a thesis, as it’s possible to add a postscript or footnote about something new and crucial right up until the last few days. And it’s also possible to have a conversation during the viva about why there isn’t a reference to something very recent, because of the necessity of a cut-off point. There really is not much excuse* for not having read at least a decent number of texts that have been around for the last few months and a few years.

(3) the thesis writer must indicate what they are using from the field as a building block for their work.

Very few researchers start from scratch. They always use some ideas and approaches that have gone before. This is not a problem, it’s the way that knowledge is constructed. So one of the major tasks of the literature review is for the researcher to identify the ideas and approaches that they will use. If there is no recent literature referred to in the review, then the examiner is likely to read this as the researcher not knowing the field, and therefore not building on its most recent developments.

Now I can imagine a piece of research where the researcher wants to go back to something that happened in the field some time before. They think there is something in a piece of work done quite some time ago that could be important to the work that they want to do. In this case, the literature that is being used to develop their piece of research will be older. However, in order to make the case that this is needed, the thesis writer still needs to deal with more recent work, indicating why and where it is inadequate, and what the significance of the older literatures might be.

BUT THERE IS NO FORMULA OR RECIPE TO HELP.

Clearly there is no hard and fast rule about how much ‘old’ and ‘new’ literatures must be used a literature review. It depends on the field and the topic. It’s another case of what Barbara and I call the Goldilocks rule – not too much, not too little. Getting the balance right can be tricky for researchers, but not at the extremes and probably not in this case. Too much ‘old’ literature and the examiners worry, too much ‘new’ and they worry just as much!

(* The exception here is in situations when researchers literally cannot access recent texts. This is the case in some parts of the world and it is why open access is so important.)

Share this:

About pat thomson

22 responses to the literature review – how old are the sources.

we should use either the Lens Directed Approach or the Conceptual Matrix Mapping Approach to stream line Literature review. I too am facing the problem of dealing with different sources of literature and research materials which have either become outdated or are not directly related to my field. Good to read this write up.

Hi, really interesting post, thank you as always. I’ve been facing similar issues over the last few weeks when writing my own thesis intro/lit review. It is really useful to hear the opinion on literature age from an examiners stand-point. I’ve written up a few thoughts on my own thesis writing here – http://abovetheleadingedge.wordpress.com/ and hoping to write up something about the intro soon. Thanks again for a really useful post.

As ever, thoughtful, interesting, informative and constructive. I was particularly struck by your comment on reviews that consider nothing older than the last few years. Mind, not all disciplines are agreed on a relatively limited number of ‘big questions’ that remain central to the research agenda over time. Educational research, for example, tends to be more ‘of the moment’, often responding to particularly pressing issues of policy or practice.

The other thing that has struck me is that some doctoral programmes formally require a written review of the literature at quite an early stage. This is the case in most professional doctorates. And I’ve noticed that when examining theses based on professional doctorates, the thesis is often grounded in the literature review that was submitted some years before. Perhaps those who supervise or lead professional doctorates should encourage their students to remember that the thesis should include relevant literature whether or not it was considered in the initial literature review?

Pingback: The literature review - how old are the source...

Pingback: the literature review – how old are the s...

Pingback: Thesis-it: the final push | TheLeadingEdge

Thanks so much for this post. This is an issue I’ve found challenging and while my supervisor once mentioned ‘ mind the years of your literature’ … I found her statement really vague. Indeed, I’ve struggled to find the balance between how much of the new and old will be acceptable for my thesis. Your post has been very helpful. Hope I get the balance right.

One thing that always seems to be missing from discussions about lit reviews is the question, “what are you reviewing it for?”

If you are reviewing the current state of the art, then it will be primarily newer articles. If you are talking about fundamental principles or the history of the field, many of them may be older.

Figure out what you are writing about and a lot of these questions have obvious answers!

I would like to cite this article. Can you provide me with a correct APA citation?

See http://www.easybib.com/guides/citation-guides/apa-format/how-to-cite-a-blog-apa/

Thomson, P. (2013). the literature review – how old are the sources? Retrieved from https://patthomson.net/2013/08/19/the-literature-review-how-old-are-the-sources/

You may have o out an access date if you give the URL like this. It seems to depend on the style.

And yet we still refer to Vytogsky who is almost 100 years old.

See this is the thing for me. How far back is contemporary? i would like to find a concrete rule for this, but I am sure I won’t. I just want to avoid going too far back in the debates of my research.

Sometimes you do have to go a long way back!

Like Liked by 2 people

Back far enough to put historical perspective in place — to show where the topic has been and now is — you will not find a concrete rule, nor should we hope there ever is one.

Like Liked by 1 person

Pingback: eek, it’s nearly 2018 | patter

I would like ask, in conducting an action/basic research proposal is it literature review must be 5 years back?

I’m giving this link to my high-school research students as an answer to “How old is too old?” I appreciate the no-formula-or-recipe line; they’ll have to think for themselves.

Hello! Sorry for commenting onsuch an old post.

Your post got me thinking about, when is the course litterature for some course too old?

I had students asking me this, regarding a course whose litterature was in average 18 years old.

It depends on the field and topic, was my reply too.

Any reflections?

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Search for:

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

patter on facebook

Recent Posts

• writing from the PhD part one
• category is – limitations, part 2 – the thesis conclusion
• Category is – “limitations” Part One
• Getting over bad/limited advice – journal article introductions
• what do you do for your reader?
• on bad writing advice, again
• do you read – or talk – your conference paper?
• your conference paper – already published or work in progress?
• a musing on email signatures
• creativity and giving up on knowing it all
• white ants and research education
• Anticipation

SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET

Top posts & pages.

• aims and objectives - what's the difference?
• I can't find anything written on my topic... really?
• 20 reading journal prompts
• writing a bio-note
• headings and subheadings – it helps to be specific
• five ways to structure a literature review
• avoiding the laundry list literature review
• introductions - establishing significance
• bad research questions
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

• An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
• A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
• Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
• Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
• Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
• Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

• Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
• Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

• Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
• Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
• Qualitative versus quantitative research
• Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
• Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
• Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

• It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
• Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
• Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
• Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review

Marco pautasso.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

* E-mail: [email protected]

The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Collection date 2013 Jul.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.

Literature reviews are in great demand in most scientific fields. Their need stems from the ever-increasing output of scientific publications [1] . For example, compared to 1991, in 2008 three, eight, and forty times more papers were indexed in Web of Science on malaria, obesity, and biodiversity, respectively [2] . Given such mountains of papers, scientists cannot be expected to examine in detail every single new paper relevant to their interests [3] . Thus, it is both advantageous and necessary to rely on regular summaries of the recent literature. Although recognition for scientists mainly comes from primary research, timely literature reviews can lead to new synthetic insights and are often widely read [4] . For such summaries to be useful, however, they need to be compiled in a professional way [5] .

When starting from scratch, reviewing the literature can require a titanic amount of work. That is why researchers who have spent their career working on a certain research issue are in a perfect position to review that literature. Some graduate schools are now offering courses in reviewing the literature, given that most research students start their project by producing an overview of what has already been done on their research issue [6] . However, it is likely that most scientists have not thought in detail about how to approach and carry out a literature review.

Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7] . In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights also come from discussions with coauthors and colleagues, as well as feedback from reviewers and editors.

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8] . The topic must at least be:

interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),

an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and

a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9] , but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the Literature

After having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10] ),

keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),

use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),

define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers (these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and

do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review ( Figure 1 ), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

Figure 1. A conceptual diagram of the need for different types of literature reviews depending on the amount of published research papers and literature reviews.

The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research studies [33] .

discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,

trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and

incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

be thorough,

use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar, ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), and

look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.

Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11] , but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to Write

After having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.

There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12] . A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13] , [14] . When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15] .

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16 , 17 . Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18] . If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.

While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19] . After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

the major achievements in the reviewed field,

the main areas of debate, and

the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary coauthors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical Structure

Like a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20] .

How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21] . This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22] .

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23] . As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.

Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24] .

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be Objective

In many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25] ? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.

In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26] )). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

Inevitably, new papers on the reviewed topic (including independently written literature reviews) will appear from all quarters after the review has been published, so that there may soon be the need for an updated review. But this is the nature of science [27] – [32] . I wish everybody good luck with writing a review of the literature.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Barbosa, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, T. Döring, D. Fontaneto, M. Garbelotto, O. Holdenrieder, M. Jeger, D. Lonsdale, A. MacLeod, P. Mills, M. Moslonka-Lefebvre, G. Stancanelli, P. Weisberg, and X. Xu for insights and discussions, and to P. Bourne, T. Matoni, and D. Smith for helpful comments on a previous draft.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) through its Centre for Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity data (CESAB), as part of the NETSEED research project. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

• 1. Rapple C (2011) The role of the critical review article in alleviating information overload. Annual Reviews White Paper. Available: http://www.annualreviews.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1300384004941/Annual_Reviews_WhitePaper_Web_2011.pdf . Accessed May 2013.
• 2. Pautasso M (2010) Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85: 193–202 doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5 [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Erren TC, Cullen P, Erren M (2009) How to surf today's information tsunami: on the craft of effective reading. Med Hypotheses 73: 278–279 doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.05.002 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61: 900–910 doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Ketcham CM, Crawford JM (2007) The impact of review articles. Lab Invest 87: 1174–1185 doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700688 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Boote DN, Beile P (2005) Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educ Res 34: 3–15 doi: 10.3102/0013189X034006003 [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Budgen D, Brereton P (2006) Performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Proc 28th Int Conf Software Engineering, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 1051–1052. doi: 10.1145/1134285.1134500 .
• 8. Maier HR (2013) What constitutes a good literature review and why does its quality matter? Environ Model Softw 43: 3–4 doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.02.004 [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Sutherland WJ, Fleishman E, Mascia MB, Pretty J, Rudd MA (2011) Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol Evol 2: 238–247 doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00083.x [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Maggio LA, Tannery NH, Kanter SL (2011) Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Acad Med 86: 1049–1054 doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Res Develop Rev 4: 356–367 doi: 10.1177/1534484305278283 [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Khoo CSG, Na JC, Jaidka K (2011) Analysis of the macro-level discourse structure of literature reviews. Online Info Rev 35: 255–271 doi: 10.1108/14684521111128032 [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Rosenfeld RM (1996) How to systematically review the medical literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115: 53–63 doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(96)70137-7 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Cook DA, West CP (2012) Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ 46: 943–952 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Dijkers M (2009) The Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines (2009) The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 88: 423–430 doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e31819c59c6 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Eco U (1977) Come si fa una tesi di laurea. Milan: Bompiani.
• 17. Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. London: SAGE.
• 18. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, et al. (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Informetr 5: 14–26 doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004 [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Carnwell R, Daly W (2001) Strategies for the construction of a critical review of the literature. Nurse Educ Pract 1: 57–63 doi: 10.1054/nepr.2001.0008 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv 132: 409–423 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034 [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Ridley D (2008) The literature review: a step-by-step guide for students. London: SAGE.
• 22. Kelleher C, Wagener T (2011) Ten guidelines for effective data visualization in scientific publications. Environ Model Softw 26: 822–827 doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.006 [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1988) Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ 138: 697–703. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. May RM (2011) Science as organized scepticism. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 369: 4685–4689 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0177 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Logan DW, Sandal M, Gardner PP, Manske M, Bateman A (2010) Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1000941 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000941 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. van Raan AFJ (2004) Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 59: 467–472 doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1 [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Rosenberg D (2003) Early modern information overload. J Hist Ideas 64: 1–9 doi: 10.1353/jhi.2003.0017 [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7: e1000326 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Bertamini M, Munafò MR (2012) Bite-size science and its undesired side effects. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 67–71 doi: 10.1177/1745691611429353 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Pautasso M (2012) Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability 4: 3234–3247 doi: 10.3390/su4123234 [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Michels C, Schmoch U (2013) Impact of bibliometric studies on the publication behaviour of authors. Scientometrics doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1015-7. In press. [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E (2013) The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ 346: f139 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f139 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Pautasso M, Döring TF, Garbelotto M, Pellis L, Jeger MJ (2012) Impacts of climate change on plant diseases - opinions and trends. Eur J Plant Pathol 133: 295–313 doi: 10.1007/s10658-012-9936-1 [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (179.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices

• First Online: 21 November 2023

Cite this chapter

• Kelly Heider 3  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

873 Accesses

1 Altmetric

The literature review is an essential component of academic research writing, providing a comprehensive overview of existing research and informing the development of new studies. However, writing an effective literature review can be a challenging task for many authors, particularly those new to academic writing. This chapter aims to guide authors through the process of writing a literature review by highlighting common mistakes and best practices. The chapter begins with three short narratives that describe difficulties both novice and prolific authors encounter when writing the literature review. A chapter activity follows with steps that guide authors through the process of developing a research question to frame the literature review. Authors are then prompted to complete a self-assessment activity which includes a series of questions designed to build their skills as academic research writers. The body of the chapter recommends strategies and techniques to help authors locate and evaluate sources that will serve as the building blocks for a literature review that is thorough, current, and well-written. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the threats and benefits of artificial intelligence-based text production in relationship to academic research writing. Overall, this chapter provides practical guidance for authors looking to improve their literature review writing skills and enhance the quality of their research output.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles

Literature Reviews

The Process of Scientific Writing: Developing a Research Question, Conducting a Literature Review, and Creating an Outline

Anson, C. M. (2022). AI-based text generation and the social construction of “fraudulent authorship”: A revisitation. Composition Studies, 50 (1), 37–46.

Google Scholar  

Aylward, K., Sbaffi, L., & Weist, A. (2020). Peer-led information literacy training: A qualitative study of students’ experiences of the NICE evidence search student champion scheme. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 37 (3), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12301

Article   Google Scholar  

Bohannon, J. (2013, October 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342 (6154), 60–65. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Bouchrika, I. (2023, March 17). Top 10 qualities of good academic research . Research. https://research.com/research/top-10-qualities-of-good-academic-research

Bowler, M., & Street, K. (2008). Investigating the efficacy of embedment: Experiments in information literacy integration. Reference Services Review, 36 , 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320810920397

De La Torre, M. (2018, August 29). Academic racism: The repression of marginalized voices in academia . The Activist History Review. https://activisthistory.com/2018/08/29/academic-racism-the-repression-of-marginalized-voices-in-academia/

Drewes, K., & Hoffman, N. (2010). Academic embedded librarianship: An introduction. Public Services Quarterly, 6 (2–3), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2010.498773

Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.a). Journal acceptance rates: Everything you need to know . Publication process. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-process/journal-acceptance-rates/#:~:text=your%20paper%20to%3F-,What%20Our%20Research%20Shows,over%201%25%20to%2093.2%25 .

Elsevier Author Services. (n.d.b). What is a good H-index? Publication recognition. https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-recognition/what-good-h-index/

Emerald Publishing. (2023). How to…conduct empirical research . https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/research-methods/conduct-empirical-research

Enago Academy. (2022, May 3). How much research is enough for a good literature review? https://www.enago.com/academy/research-for-a-good-literature-review/

Fitzgibbons, M. (2021). Literature review synthesis matrix . Concordia University Library. [Adapted from original table by the WI+RE Team at UCLA Library.] https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/library/docs/research-guides/gradproskills/Lit-review-synthesis-matrix-Word.docx

Garrett, W. (n.d.) Marginalized populations . Minnesota Psychological Association. https://www.mnpsych.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&category=division%20news&id=71:marginalized-populations

George Mason University Libraries. (2021, August 20). Find authors . Finding diverse voices in academic research. https://infoguides.gmu.edu/c.php?g=1080259&p=7871669

Gyles, C. (2014, February). Can we trust peer-reviewed science? The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 55 (2), 109–111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894865/#b2-cvj_02_109

Hern, A. (2022, December 4). AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics with essay-writing skills and usability . The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/04/ai-bot-chatgpt-stuns-academics-with-essay-writing-skills-and-usability

Hoffman, N., Beatty, S., Feng, P., & Lee, J. (2017). Teaching research skills through embedded librarianship. Reference Services Review, 45 , 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2016-0045

Indeed Editorial Team. (2022, June 28). Create a theoretical framework for your research in 4 steps . Indeed. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/theoretical-framework

Jansen, D. (2021, June). How to choose your research methodology . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/choose-research-methodology/

Jansen, D., & Warren, K. (2020, June). What (exactly) is a literature review? GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-a-literature-review/

Jin, Y. Y., Noh, H., Shin, H., & Lee, S. M. (2015). A typology of burnout among Korean teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24 (2), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-014-0181-6

Koufogiannakis, D., Buckingham, J., Alibhai, A., & Rayner, D. (2005). Impact of librarians in first-year medical and dental student problem-based learning (PBL) groups: A controlled study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 , 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2005.00559.x

Larsen, C. M., Terkelsen, A. S., Carlsen, A. F., & Kristensen, H. K. (2019). Methods for teaching evidence-based practice: A scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 19 , 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1681-0

Liberties EU. (2021, October 5). What is marginalization? Definition and coping strategies . https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/marginalization-and-being-marginalized/43767

Lucey, B., & Dowling, M. (2023). ChatGPT: Our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals—just as some ban it . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-our-study-shows-ai-can-produce-academic-papers-good-enough-for-journals-just-as-some-ban-it-197762

Maior, E., Dobrean, A., & Păsărelu, C. (2020). Teacher rationality, social-emotional competencies, and basic needs satisfaction: Direct and indirect effects on teacher burnout. Journal of Evidence—Based Psychotherapies, 20 (1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.24193/jebp.2020.1.8

Mertens, D. M. (2019). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Monash University. (2023). Structuring a literature review . Learn HQ. https://www.monash.edu/learnhq/excel-at-writing/how-to-write.../literature-review/structuring-a-literature-review

Nova, A. (2017, December 21). Learn how to write a literature review in simple steps . MyPerfectWords. https://myperfectwords.com/blog/research-paper-guide/how-to-write-a-literature-review

O’Byrne, I. (2018, February 9). Eight steps to write a literature review . https://wiobyrne.com/literature-review/

Online Campus Writing Center. (2023). Synthesis . The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. https://community.thechicagoschool.edu/writingresources/online/Pages/Synthesis.aspx

Phair, D. (2021, June). Writing a literature review: 7 common (and costly) mistakes to avoid . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-mistakes/

Robinson, K. A., Akinyede, O., Dutta, T., Sawin, V. I., Li, T., Spencer, M. R., Turkelson, C. M., & Weston, C. (2013, February). Framework for determining research gaps during systematic review: Evaluation . Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U.S.). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126702/

Rommelspacher, A. (2020, November). How to structure your literature review: Three options to help structure your chapter . GradCoach. https://gradcoach.com/literature-review-structure/

Royal Literary Fund. (2023). The structure of a literature review . https://www.rlf.org.uk/resources/the-structure-of-a-literature-review/

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process . SAGE Publications.

Scimago Lab. (2022a). About us . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php

Scimago Lab. (2022b). Journal rankings . Scimago Journal and Country Rank. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php

Shumaker, D. (2009). Who let the librarians out? Embedded librarianship and the library manager. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 48 (3), 239–257.

Statistics Solutions. (2023). Tips for the literature review: Synthesis and analysis . Complete dissertation. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/tips-for-the-literature-review-synthesis-and-analysis/

TechTarget. (2023). What is OpenAI? Open AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/OpenAI

Texas A&M University Writing Center. (2023). Self-assessment . https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/Faculty-Advisors/Resources-for-Teaching/Feedback/Self-Assessment

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. (2022, May 13). Evaluate sources. Public administration research. https://libguides.uccs.edu/c.php?g=617840&p=4299162

University of Maryland Global Campus. (n.d.). Discipline-specific research methods . https://coursecontent.umgc.edu/umgc/shareable-content/toolkits/BEHS000/1402/ResearchMethods/Discipline-SpecificResearchMethods.html

University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21). Academic writing: Writing the literature review [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0

Walker, R., & Solvason, C. (2014). Methodology: Choosing your research approach . SAGE Publications.

Wardle, E., & Downs, D. (2019). Writing about writing (4th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Wiggers, K. (2023, January 31). OpenAI releases tool to detect AI-generated text, including from ChatGPT . TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/31/openai-releases-tool-to-detect-ai-generated-text-including-from-chatgpt/

Yilmaz, K., Altinkurt, Y., Guner, M., & Sen, B. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ emotional labor and burnout level. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 59 , 75–90.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Acting Assistant Vice Provost for University Libraries, Indiana University of PA, Indiana, PA, USA

Kelly Heider

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Heider .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Emerita, Indiana, PA, USA

Mary Renck Jalongo

Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA

Olivia N. Saracho

Issue: AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing

 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a relatively new technological development that can be used to support academic research writing, particularly reviews of research. Although it holds promise as a research tool, there are also concerns that AI-based scholarly writing could threaten not only the integrity but also the creativity of academic research writing. ChatGPT, an advanced chatbot developed by OpenAI (a nonprofit research company founded by Elon Musk and Sam Altman in 2015) has been at the center of much controversy as of late because of its ability to produce academic papers using artificial intelligence-based text production that have fooled academics and academic journal publishers (Hern, 2022 ; Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ; TechTarget, 2023 ). To demonstrate ChatGPT’s capabilities, consider its response to the question, “What is artificial intelligence-based text production?”.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Text Production is a process where machine learning algorithms are used to generate written content such as articles, product descriptions, social media posts, and more. It involves training machine learning models with vast amounts of data to learn how to generate human-like text automatically. The process can involve different techniques such as Natural Language Processing (NLP), deep learning, and neural networks to analyze and understand language patterns, grammar, context, and semantics. The resulting AI-generated text can be used for a wide range of applications, including content marketing, chatbots, language translation, and more. One of the main benefits of AI-based text production is that it can help businesses and organizations automate their content creation process, saving time and resources while producing high-quality content. However, it is important to note that AI-generated text may not always be perfect and may require human editing and review to ensure accuracy and coherence.

This response was produced by ChatGPT in about ten seconds. According to Anson ( 2022 ), “cutting and pasting all or part of this auto-generated text into a new text box can continue to prompt further content. The material is not plagiarized from existing sources but freshly composed. For this reason, it usually evades plagiarism-detection programs like Turnitin” (p. 40).

How Might AI-Based Text Production Threaten Academic Research Writing?

Obviously, computer-generated text that evades plagiarism-detection programs threatens the integrity of academic research writing. Some academic publishers have already banned or limited the use of AI-generated text in papers submitted to their journals (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). However, that is easier said than done. OpenAI recently developed a tool that attempts to distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text to prevent chatbots like ChatGPT from being abused, but it is only 26% effective (Wiggers, 2023 ).

Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ) tested the credibility of ChatGPT by having expert reviewers examine papers produced by the chatbot. First, they asked ChatGPT to generate four parts of a research study: (1) research idea, (2) literature review, (3) dataset, and (4) suggestions for testing and examination. They chose a broad subject and instructed the chatbot to create a paper that could be published in “a good finance journal” (para. 6). Second, they pasted 200 relevant abstracts into the ChatGPT search box and asked the chatbot to consider the abstracts when generating the four-part research study. Finally, they asked academic researchers to read both versions of the AI-generated text and make suggestions for improvement. A panel of thirty-two reviewers read all versions of the four-part research study and rated them. In all cases, the papers were considered acceptable by the reviewers, although the chatbot-created papers that also included input from academic researchers were rated higher. However, “a chatbot was deemed capable of generating quality academic research ideas. This raises fundamental questions around the meaning of creativity and ownership of creative ideas—questions to which nobody yet has solid answers” (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 , para. 10).

How Might AI-Based Text Production Benefit Academic Research Writing?

Despite several publishers deciding to ban the inclusion of AI-based text production in submissions, some researchers have already listed ChatGPT as a co-author on their papers (Lucey & Dowling, 2023 ). There are many who believe there is no difference between the way ChatGPT produces text and the way authors synthesize studies in their literature reviews. In fact, the chatbot’s review is much more exhaustive because it can analyze “billions of existing, human-produced texts and, through a process akin to the creation of neural networks, generate new text based on highly complex predictive machine analysis” (Anson, 2022 , p. 39).

There are other advantages to using AI-based text production. It has the potential to aid groups of researchers who lack funding to hire human research assistants such as emerging economy researchers, graduate students, and early career researchers. According to Lucey and Dowling ( 2023 ), AI-based text production “could help democratize the research process” (para. 18). Anson ( 2022 ) also sees the potential in AI-based text production to “spark some new human-generated ideas” (p. 42), extract keywords, and create abstracts. The development of AI-based text production might also force instructors to change the way they teach academic writing. Instead of trying to detect or prevent the use of chatbots like ChatGPT, “a more sensible approach could involve embracing the technology, showing students what it can and can’t do, and asking them to experiment with it” (Anson, 2022 , p. 44). In other words, students could be asked to write about writing which leads to a deeper understanding of the writing process and the ability to transfer that understanding to any writing project (Wardle & Downs, 2019 ).

The Responsible Use of AI-Based Text Production in Academic Research Writing

The responsible use of AI-based text production in academic research writing involves understanding the technology's capabilities and limitations, as well as considering its potential impact on the research process. Researchers must carefully evaluate the intended purpose and context of using AI-generated text and make certain they are not compromising the authenticity and integrity of their research work. To ensure responsible use, it is essential to balance the benefits of increased efficiency and new insights with the need for originality and critical thinking in academic research writing. Researchers must also be transparent in disclosing the use of AI-generated text when submitting their work for publication. By adopting a responsible and thoughtful approach to the use of AI-based text production, researchers can maximize the benefits of the technology while maintaining the quality and authenticity of their research.

Applications of Technology

How to Write a Paper in a Weekend : https://youtu.be/UY7sVKJPTMA

Note : University of Minnesota Chemistry Professor, Peter Carr is not advocating for procrastination. This video outlines a strategy for generating a first draft after you have all your reading and notes assembled.

Research Gap 101: What Is a Research Gap & How to Find One : https://youtu.be/Kabj0u8YQ4Y

Using Google Scholar for Academic Research : https://youtu.be/t8_CW6FV8Ac .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Heider, K. (2023). Writing the Literature Review: Common Mistakes and Best Practices. In: Renck Jalongo, M., Saracho, O.N. (eds) Scholarly Writing. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_3

Published : 21 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39515-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39516-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research